Common food waste disposers are typically single speed devices usually operated by a switch that which is often mounted to a wall in near vicinity to the disposer (e.g., beside the sink to which the disposer is affixed). This may not be most advantageous, because a single grinding speed is not always optimal for grinding foods of different hardnesses or constituencies, and otherwise limits the functionality of the disposer.
For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,481,652, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, discloses a food waste disposer which can operate at various speeds to either optimize grinding or perform other beneficial functions. For, example, the '652 patent recognizes that it can be beneficial to grind softer or stringy foods at higher speeds, while grinding harder foods at slower speeds. Accordingly, a grinding algorithm (or mode) is disclosed in the '652 patent in which the disposer grinds at a high speed for a set time, followed by a medium speed for a set time, followed by a low speed. This optimized grinding algorithm is beneficial in that it allows food of all hardnesses to be optimally ground during at least one portion of the grind cycle.
Other useful algorithms are disclosed in the '652 patent. For example, a soft start mode is disclosed, during which the speed of the disposer is gradually increased after it is turned on by the user so that the disposer does not become overwhelmed and clogged by an initial slug of food waste. An idle mode detects whether food waste is present in the disposer, and drops the disposer's speed during periods when the food waste disposer is empty (such as when the user is walking back and forth between the dinner table) to decrease the noise of the disposer. A rinse mode increases the speed of the disposer near the end of a grinding cycle to more effectively splash water within the grinding chamber to wash it clean, thereby reducing foul odors. An anti-jamming mode allows for the detection of objects that have might have jammed the disposer, such as eating implements (e.g., spoons, forms, or knives) or bone fragments, and automatically takes corrective action, for example, by reversing the direction of rotation of the motor that performs the grinding in an attempt to dislodge the jam. (Further details concerning some of these modes can be found in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/262,776, filed Oct. 2, 2002, which is incorporated herein by reference). All or some of these algorithms disclosed in the '652 patent can be concatenated together (e.g., soft start, then optimizing grinding, then rinse), with perhaps the idle and anti-jamming modes running in the background should idleness or jamming become an issue during a grinding operation.
However, these disclosed algorithms are not controllable, or modifiable, by the user, and instead are automatically implemented by a motor controller when the disposer is turned on. Such a hands-off approach may not always be desirable. For example, if only hard foods such as bone fragments are to be ground, the high and medium speed portions of the optimized grinding algorithm may not be useful, and might therefore preferably be dispensed with. Likewise, for stringy foods, like celery, it might only be preferable to operate the disposer at a high speed. If the disposer smells bad, the user may simply wish to run the rinse mode without having the disposer perform the optimized grinding mode at all. In short, the user has little control over how the disposer is to be operated, and instead must be content that the disposer will perhaps perform all of these potential algorithms whether they are needed or not.
In addition to lack of user control, disposers such as those disclosed in the '652 patent provide the user with no indication of what the disposer is doing at any given time. This lack of feedback impedes the benefits that improved functionality provides. For example, the user may wish to know when the disposer is running the idle mode algorithm, which might indicate to the user that the disposer is empty and can now be turned off, or that the rinse mode should be activated. In another example, it is useful for the user to know if the disposer is running the anti-jamming algorithm. Although this algorithm preferably performs its own corrective action measures, the user may still need to intervene, for example, by removing an eating implement from the grinding chamber so that the disposer will not become jammed again. Stated more generally, it is useful for the user to have some feedback concerning what is occurring with the disposer to enable the user to take appropriate actions.
In short, while food waste disposers such as those disclosed in the '652 patent have improved functionality over more commonplace single speed disposers, they provide no mechanism to allow users to take full control of that functionality, and further provide no indication concerning the functions being performed or the status of the disposer, which hampers the usefulness of this increased functionality.